Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:32, 22 February 2023

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

February 14

Some kind of soot-destroying sparkler?

What does Doctor Who use here, in The Brain of Morbius (part 3) at 12:16? It seems that he lights a match which fizzes and hisses, calling it "a little demon". This object somehow clears a soot blockage. Card Zero (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "plot device." Bear in mind the show is science fiction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you think it's supposed to be a future technology chimney sweeping device. I guess that's possible. I was assuming a mundane device from the recent past, which would be recognized by the 1970s audience but has since become obsolete due to the lack of chimneys. Card Zero (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that this particular device is necessarily supposed future technology, but that more generally the show does not attempt to ground every contrivance it portrays in current (or past) known technology, and the script writers were likely not worried about its verisimilitude, any more than they are when The Doctor uses his sonic screwdriver. Given that it appears to be some kind of minor explosive device like a firecracker, it is still not obvious how soot was blocking the flame equipment (whose design is unknown) and how the device cleared it. The point is that it doesn't matter: a problem existed, The Doctor solved it with a thingammy, the plot advances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first thoughts. I well remember Little Demons: they were bangers, which is to say small firecrackers. Doctor Who may be a science fiction character but he's not above using very mundane devices, especially perhaps in the Tom Baker incarnation. --Antiquary (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There's a muffled bang when the flame goes out, I should have noticed that. In context, the Doctor had been arguing for some time that the reason for the low flame was technical, while the acolytes were only willing to consider it a magical problem, so giving him a way to restore the flame with technology while being honestly able to say that he used "a little demon" is neat. Card Zero (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who, after all, is the show that gave us the sonic screwdriver, the capabilities and limitations of which are "whatever the plot needs at the time". --Jayron 32 13:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, it tidies away plot holes like Jupiter attracts asteroids, which made me all the more suspicious that this particular device had meaning and was not imaginary, since if an automatic hand-waving device was needed the sonic screwdriver was already available. Card Zero (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Card_Zero a google search did turn up this. The Dr uses a small firecracker rather than a fountain and, as others have said this is just a plot device but it was interesting to find that someone has tried it - or claimed to anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 03:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I remember you used to be able to buy soot destroyers which you put on the fire and were meant to safely burn off the soot and tar deposits in the chimney. DuncanHill (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Solitaire with hanafuda / Go-Stop cards?

I bought a deck of hanafuda cards (Korean style, does this matter?). I wonder if there exist solitaire games meant for a deck of hanafuda cards. I suppose I could play Sir Tommy with it. Do there exist Japanese or Korean solitaire games for use with hanafuda cards, or is the concept of such a game alien to those cultures? 2601:18A:C500:7170:1850:2103:1B63:92C9 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "hanafuda solitaire" into Google yielded some pretty good results. The very first link seems to be an example of exactly what you're looking for.--Jayron 32 13:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

Zombie Movies

Hello, I am interested in knowing more about the origin of Zombie movies. Could anyone point me to some references about zombie movies? Thank you! Tv In My Eye (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can start here Zombie film#History. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term and concept Zombie originated in Haitian folklore well over 200 years ago. The concept entered the mainstream of American popular culture with the 1968 George Romero made low budget horror film Night of the Living Dead. This film fell into the public domain, so many other filmmakers have used it as an inspiration without any legal problems. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the actual term, but the concept was alive and well in the mid-1950s Ed Wood 'classic', Plan 9 from Outer Space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding Zombie movies there were zombie stories and books, on the fringe of science fiction. I read plenty of such things in the early 1960s, but none had the literary impact for their names or details to remain in my conscious memory. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did these stories precede White Zombie? --Lambiam 12:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most notably, Romero's monsters set the modern expectation of zombies to be ghouls: eaters of human flesh. In fact, they're not called zombies in the film at all. Earlier movies, like the Hammer classic, The Plague of the Zombies still used the original meaning of zombie: an undead slave that could be used for labour. They were still horrifying because they couldn't be reasoned with and were repulsive, etc., but the emphasis was different. It's a testament to NOTLD's impact that it would be virtually impossible to make a film today dealing with "true" zombies because the expectation of them to be flesh-eaters (or brain eaters) is now so firmly entrenched). Matt Deres (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The concept entered the mainstream of American popular culture with the 1968 George Romero made low budget horror film" I am not certain about that. American comic books have been using zombie characters since the 1940s. DC Comics' zombie character Soiomon Grundy dates to 1944. The Disney character Bombie the Zombie by Carl Barks dates to Four Color #238] (1949): "A zombie gives Donald a poisoned doll that was intended for Uncle Scrooge, who looked like Donald when the doll was given to the Zombie some seventy years before. Donald--followed by the nephews and "Bombie the Zombie"--goes to Africa to persuade the witch doctor Foola Zoola to give him the antidote for the poison, which is supposed to shrink its victims to the size of a rat." Marvel Comics' eponymous Zombie/Simon William Garth dates to 1953. Dimadick (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the OP asked about zombie movies, not zombie comic books, Dimadick. Movies have been in the mainstream of American popular culture for 110 years at least, maybe longer. Comic books were very far from the mainstream of American popular culture in 1968, although their influence has certainly increased since Superman (1978 film) which brought superhero comic book heroes and villains into the Hollywood mainstream. It seems indisputable to me that Romero created the current zombie movie genre. Cullen328 (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point still stands, though: NOTLD didn't bring zombies to US cinema for the first time; it just changed the way zombies are defined. Matt Deres (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Legend (novel):

I Am Legend is a 1954 post-apocalyptic horror novel by American writer Richard Matheson that was influential in the modern development of zombie and vampire literature and in popularizing the concept of a worldwide apocalypse due to disease.

In I Am Legend, the "vampires" share more similarities with zombies, and the novel influenced the zombie genre and popularized the concept of a worldwide zombie apocalypse.[7]

Although the idea has now become commonplace, a scientific origin for vampirism or zombies was fairly original when written.[8

Although referred to as "the first modern vampire novel", it is as a novel of social theme that I Am Legend made a lasting impression on the cinematic zombie genre, by way of director George A. Romero, who acknowledged its influence and that of its original cinematic adaptation, The Last Man on Earth (1964), upon his seminal film Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Basically "zombie movies" feature the Matheson vampires with a Haitian name.

--Error (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Basically "zombie movies" feature the Matheson vampires with a Haitian name." Not really. Our articles on zombies in fiction simply credits Matheson with practically inventing the "zombie apocalypse". Most 1950s-era depictions of zombies as "uncontrollable, mostly mute, primitive and extremely violent" are derivatives of an older work: the short story Herbert West–Reanimator (1921-1922) by H. P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft was the first writer to depict zombies "as scientifically reanimated corpses, with animalistic and uncontrollable temperaments." Believe it or not, the scientific origin of zombies was still a fresh idea in the 1920s. Dimadick (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

This Is Why We Bleed by Leader

Can anyone tell me what genre this song is? Everywhere i search just leads me to streaming services Trade (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be an article here about it. Who recorded it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leader. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock - according to https://www.shazam.com/track/335702687/this-is-why-we-bleed 41.23.55.195 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last.fm classifies it as heavy metal, speed metal, and power metal. See [1] --Jayron 32 13:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i'll go with that one Trade (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on this group called Leader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could have found out by putting double square brackets around that word. Oh, I'm sorry, was it a rhetorical question?

We have one on Leaders (band), though. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those seems to be two different bands with identical names. Trade (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem. Who's the lead singer of the OP's intended group? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the group when "This is Why we Bleed" was recorded were Luke Zarakas, Steffan Zarakas, and Aaron Klecka.^[2] Current members are Luke (guitar), Steffan (vocals & bass) and Nick (drums).^[3] (The last member's surname is not given; perhaps it is Nick Radovanovic, who used to be drummer for the band Acceptance.) --Lambiam 00:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of whom appear to have articles here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the band is notable. It's not on discogs (another band of that name has a profile, but they're from the Netherlands, not Chicago), and none of the three members listed above have any credits to their name either. I could hardly find any info about them except a link to the video of the song in question. They do have a Bandcamp page [4], but it also only contains minimal information besides links to their music,; in any case, simply having a page on the site is a low bar to clear. Xuxl (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said "I'll go with that one" (heavy metal), so the question is, "Go with it" where? No articles here and no apparent notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're preparing a draft off-Wiki for some time in the future when it's not TOOSOON. maybe they're writing an article for some other publication. Maybe they're compiling information for their own private reference*. Unless and until a draft appears on Wikipedia, why worry about it?

(* For context, I myself maintain a list (handwritten, in small ring binder files) of all the albums by all the bands/artists of whom I possess at least one physical album. I don't add genre descriptions because I'm dubious about the concept, but someone else might want to.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 51.198.55.125 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

John Wick retro styling

One of the John Wick movies is on the teevee right now, and all the stuff in the fancy headquarters is done in a retro, maybe 1940's styling. That style is too modern to be steampunk, it's obviously not cyberpunk, but it seems like it should have some kind of label (even if not containing -punk) connected to it. Does anyone know if there is such a label? Thanks. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:756C (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched any of the John Wick films, but the 1930s-1940s genre is dieselpunk.

-- Error (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what I wanted, or anyway pretty close. Brazil (1985 film) is another movie using a similar style. Thinking a little further, I'd put John Wick at more like the 1960's (multiline telephones with those square pushbuttons on the bottom) to 1980s (they use Commodore VIC 20 computers!) No idea if that has a name too. The thing is, the crime syndicate intentionally uses all this retro stuff. The outside world still has cell phones and everything. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:756C (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen John Wick in a long time, so I can't comment on that movie's style. However, after dieselpunk (and subset decopunk) comes atompunk (more here). Atompunk is quite different from dieselpunk, though: bright colours, swooping shapes, etc. Brazil's tech is more like steampunk, but Gilliam's overwhelming cynicism gives it a grittier feel than is typical. These *punk derivatives are mostly about aesthetic, but movies also have mood, setting, story types, etc. that complicate fitting them into a single niche. Matt Deres (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With John Wick, it's more doyoufeelluckypunk. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

John Wick can be considered a Neo-noir film. The headquarter scenes always struck me as suddenly more Film noir compared to the rest. Alien878 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sampras

While I understand that the question may be better suitable for Languages section, Pistol Pete is an enduring sporting icon. My Greek is beyond terrible, but I noticed that Antetokounmpo is pronounced as Adetokumbo. Does this mean that Greeks would pronounce the former surname as Sábras? Splićanin (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before Pete Sampras, there was Pete Maravich, known as "Pistol Pete", who made the nickname famous. Sampras is a native Greek name, which Antetokounmpo is not - which probably explains why the pronunciation does not match the spelling. Not the case for Pete. Xuxl (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pistol Pete" was made famous by Sampras, not Maravić. Surely there couldn't have been second Pistol Pete if the first were firmly in control of the nickname. Splićanin (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this page suggests that the nickname is not firmly controlled by any particular person. Shells-shells (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that cowboy name originated in the late 19th century. And to argue that Maravich did not make the nickname Pistol Pete "famous" is dubious at best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A native Greek speaker is likely to voice the ⟨π⟩ in Σάμπρας; compare the pronunciation /ambɾaˈʝaz/ of αμπραγιάζ. It is unclear if they would produce an audible [m]; compare the pronunciation /ˈzebɾa/ of ζέμπρα. The speaker might not even understand the question whether the name is pronounced /ˈsambras/ or /ˈsabras/; they may not realize these sound different to English ears. --Lambiam 00:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth mentioning that in modern Greek β is pronounced /v/, so μπ is used to represent the /b/ sound in some native words but especially in loan words and foreign names – hence ζέμπρα for a zebra and Μπομπ for the nickname Bob. Lambiam's general point seems valid to me. Deor (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. Thank you. Splićanin (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion by Splićanin that the nickname "Pistol Pete" was made famous by Sampras instead of Marovich is wrong. Both were well known by that nickname, but Marovich came first, and NBA stars are more widely known by hundreds of millions of people that tennis players are. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much [citation needed] on that one. Certainly in Europe, a top tennis player is way more likely to be known than an NBA player. Basketball is a minor niche sport in Europe, and many other parts of the world, whereas tennis is a major televised sport. I would say it's your assertions that's wrong. Fgf10 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many Pistol Petes have there been after Sampras? Thank you and have a nice day. Splićanin (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original Pistol Pete continues to be the Oklahoma State University mascot. Sampras started his career in 1990, two years after Maravich had died. Sampras' career ended in 2002. Looking at Newspapers.com from 2003 to date, there are more than twice as many references to Pistol Pete Maravich as there are to Pistol Pete Sampras. I also Googled "Pistol Pete". Between Maravich and Sampras, guess which one comes up first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Maravich was well-known as Pistol Pete before Sampras was born. He may not be known to you, but then again, you don't get to decide who was already well known to other people. --Jayron 32 13:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sketch it for you in very simple terms since you seem to struggle with letting go when wrong: there had been numerous Pistol Petes before Sampras and none ever since. Splićanin (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who seems to struggle with letting go of your false premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a false premise here that what must hold true in the US must automatically hold true elsewhere. It is entirely possible that Pistol Pete is more likely to mean the basketball player in the US and other areas where basketball is a big sport and the tennis player in areas where tennis is a bigger sport. Fgf10 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before jumping to that conclusion, it would be useful to find out who dubbed Sampras "Pistol Pete" and why. It would not be surprising if American sportswriters, invoking the then-recent memory of Maravich, copied that nickname for Sampras. I was in error about 1990. Sampras' career began in 1988, the same year Maravich died. And Sampras was American. All three characters called Pistol Pete were American. So it's very likely that each was nicknamed for the previous one(s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've ony heard of the cowboy. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Big brother USA diversity

Was the 23rd season of the American version of Big Brother the first time there were six or more African American house guests? (78.19.33.244 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

February 21

Films switching aspect ratio

Top Gun: Maverick switches its aspect ratio in the home release multiple times between Cinemascope 2.39:1 and IMAX 1.90:1, causing change between letterboxing, pillarboxing and/or fullscreen, depending on the actual screen of the viewer. The same footage may also have been used in both formats, depending on the scene or sub-scene it was used - so it did not only depend on the shooting camera. Two questions: 1. Did this switch materialize in any theater screening, or did they just fill the theater screens as good as possible? 2. Which other films show such a switching? I have learned about Tron: Legacy already, made by the same team (Kosinski/Miranda). Are there other formats, or even more than two, to be switched between them? --KnightMove (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you're looking for, but Babylon 5 was filmed widescreen with CGI effects added later. The original TV broadcast in the 1990s was essentially a pan-and-scan of the "true" film which was widescreen. But the studio decided to nickel and dime them on the postproduction budget, and to save money they only rendered the CGI shots in 4:3 (since the show was broadcast in 4:3 anyways). The wide version of the CGI shots was never finished, and doesn't exist today.

So when you watch the show now on VOD, most shots are the "original" widescreen, but every effects shot was originally 4:3, so it has to be zoomed up and cropped vertically to fit a modern widescreen TV. This looks terrible and is jarring when it happens, but there's really nothing else they can do about it at this point. Staecker (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 [[Top Gun: Maverick]] switches its aspect ratio in the home release multiple times between Cinemascope 2.39:1 and IMAX 1.90:1, causing change between letterboxing, pillarboxing and/or fullscreen, depending on the actual screen of the viewer. The same footage may also have been used in ''both'' formats, depending on the scene or sub-scene it was used - so it did not only depend on the shooting camera. Two questions: 1. Did this switch materialize in any theater screening, or did they just fill the theater screens as good as possible? 2. Which other films show such a switching? I have learned about [[Tron: Legacy]] already, made by the same team (Kosinski/Miranda). Are there other formats, or even more than two, to be switched between them? --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 06:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
+:Not exactly what you're looking for, but [[Babylon 5]] was filmed widescreen with CGI effects added later. The original TV broadcast in the 1990s was essentially a pan-and-scan of the "true" film which was widescreen. But the studio decided to nickel and dime them on the postproduction budget, and to save money they only rendered the CGI shots in 4:3 (since the show was broadcast in 4:3 anyways). The wide version of the CGI shots was never finished, and doesn't exist today.
+:So when you watch the show now on VOD, most shots are the "original" widescreen, but every effects shot was originally 4:3, so it has to be zoomed up and cropped vertically to fit a modern widescreen TV. This looks terrible and is jarring when it happens, but there's really nothing else they can do about it at this point. [[User:Staecker|Staecker]] ([[User talk:Staecker|talk]]) 11:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 = February 22 =